If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

If you been following this thread or the satellite thread, you know I’ve had a hard time even considering that rockets would not work in vacuum. But thanks to all of you and me working with my cognitive dissonance I’ve finally managed to think rationally about this, and I now instead find it absurd to think that rockets would work in vacuum. I am not that fluent with physics formulas but I have a pretty good understanding about how gas and pressure works. I am also a person that likes to talk about what’s on my mind so I’ve had a lot of discussions with friends and colleagues on this. I would like to know if anyone have links to experiments or demonstrations that show how unlikely it is that rockets could work in vacuum? I have some ideas of my own (see below), but I’ve not found anything similar on Youtube or elsewhere and would rather not go through the hassle of doing them myself in the garage since it’s a lot of work to build a decent vacuum chamber.

Cracker in a bottle experiment: Suspend a bottle with wires in a camber with normal atmospheric pressure. Put a firecracker in the bottle an light it. The bottle should move slightly when the gas from the explosion rushes through the neck of the bottle and meets resistance. Now remove as much air as possible from the chamber, and do the experiment again. The bottle should move less or not at all, since the expanding gasses meet lesser resistance from the surrounding air when exiting the bottle.

I know about the deceptive experiments done by for example Mythbusters and the one I refereed to previously in this thread, where you have a small vacuum chamber and hence get the exhaust gasses of a rocket to work against the wall of the chamber, but I believe if you do the experiment I describe you would not get that problem since a cracker releases less gas. And most people I’ve talked to agrees that a rocket and bottle with a cracker is a similar concept.

Would the fuse light in a vacuum? I remember playing with firecrackers when I was young, some but not all bottle rocket fuses would burn under water so they must have an oxidizer. An electric model rocket ignitor could be used. Perhaps a safer and easier test could be performed simply by releasing an untied pressurized balloon in the vacuum chamber.

Kham wrote:There is another video that demonstrates the idea of how thrust works also using a standard balloon car. Although this clip does not disprove that rockets can operate in a vacuum, it does demonstrate the pushing against air idea, in that air exiting the balloon must push on the atmosphere behind it in order for the balloon car to move forward. I included this link because it was a second demonstration of that same idea from the first video and it’s entertaining. The experiment at the link below will start at 9:20. The explanations are at the beginning of the video.

To me that's still the simplest and most significant experiment in this area, using just a toy balloon and a vaccuum cleaner for demonstration that you don't get any propulsion if the gas is sucked away right after emission respectively if there is a near vaccuum at the nozzle.

rusty » July 5th, 2017, 8:18 am wrote:To me that's still the simplest and most significant experiment in this area, using just a toy balloon and a vaccuum cleaner for demonstration that you don't get any propulsion if the gas is sucked away right after emission respectively if there is a near vaccuum at the nozzle.

Hi rusty and thanks for the input

Yes, I agree and this clearly illustrates why rockets have no way to work in vacuum. But technical people I talk to cannot see this because we’ve been so indoctrinated. Most of the times when I talk about this Newton is brought up and this reasoning is claimed to violate his laws, but it doesn’t. A good analogy in my mind, is to talk about a gun or a cannon and different bullets. If you fire a bullet you will get a recoil. If you reduce the weight of the bullet and use the same charge the recoil will be less. If you remove the bullet entirely and shoot a blank, the recoil will be very small but measurable. And if you fire the blank charge at the top of Mount Everest it will be smaller than at sea level. So what would logically happen if you fire a blank in vacuum?

Intothevoid » July 5th, 2017, 2:16 am wrote:Would the fuse light in a vacuum? I remember playing with firecrackers when I was young, some but not all bottle rocket fuses would burn under water so they must have an oxidizer. An electric model rocket ignitor could be used. Perhaps a safer and easier test could be performed simply by releasing an untied pressurized balloon in the vacuum chamber.

When I was a kid we fired mini rockets under the ice of lakes. You had to time it right, hold the rocket in your hand and release it just as it started to burn. But I don't know how well a regular rocket burns in a vacuum. Yes a balloon or bottle with just air would demonstrate the exact same thing, but I don't know if people will accept that. Rockets in vacuum clearly violates basic physics and that has already been proven. Yet we cannot see that (including me until just a couple of weeks ago) because of sattelites and all the rest of the space hoax. We are so caught in this lie.

Another funny thing about those rockets I used to play with as a teenager (I think they were called "Estes") is that they would accelerate instantly, like an explosion. I know this has already been covered in previous discussions, but I find this important to mention and/or "bump" it because I think it's a pretty critical discussion when we are watching these towering, slow-moving objects barely climb into the air on the launch videos.

What manner of rocket is this compared with the familiar kind we know about and can play with ourselves? The idea of some kind of balloon or buoyancy trick doesn't seem as impossible to me as I thought before. We must consider the real possibility that these objects are never manned. As per military guidance safety reasons.

The "dare" is that they tell the world they are putting up manned rockets as if it were as simple as flying an extremely fast and barely balancing aircraft (which itself, I am led to believe, is not easy either) but the truth is that there is simply nobody occupying these dummy crafts.

The logical fact that every kind of "landing" you can think of basically requires a "retrieval" crew lends itself to the idea that the "returning astronauts" are delivered to the "landing site" from a home base, which would be extremely militarily secure as well.

An obvious choice would be to simply place the "returned astronauts" there with a secretive crew. Then, for the "recovery" crew to retrieve in a kind of bizarre (Masonic? i.e.; dupers' delightful?) performance ritual. This would keep the secret in the hands of even fewer people, in case some NASA devotee civilian photographer or another kind of joyful zealot wanted to tag along and witness the retrieval first hand.

Depending on the security level of the whole operation you might leave the base with the astronauts already in tow, then "reveal" them in the ocean, or not even leave home at all and just have some short documentary footage.

I get the feeling that if they make footage they are happy with they show it. We get the false impression that some clip in the news means they have entire enormous documentary crews for every single take off and landing event. The truth might be that the only media that ever exists about a landing is the brief hour-long interactions or so shown on NASA channel.

And that's if you're "lucky" and you get that much footage at all.

Slap a "LIVE" sticker somewhere on there and — hey, presto! — you got yourself a real spectacle. Entire mission "filled in" the audience's very primed and hypnotized imaginations.

And as the author (whom seems to sadly be unknown) points out - To claim that rockets can work in the vacuum of space would be "to deny a fundamental law of dynamics, and only Dr. EINSTEIN and his chosen dozen, so few and fit, are licensed to do that."

TOPICS OF THE TIMES (New York Times, Jan 13, 1920)A Severe Strain on CredulityAs a method of sending missile to the higher, and even to the highest, part of the earth's atmosphere envelope, Professor GODDARD'S multiple-charge rocket is a practicable, and therefore promising, device. Such a rocket, too, might carry self-recording instruments, to be released at the limit of its flight, and conceivably parachutes would bring them safely to the ground. It is not obvious, however, that the instruments would return to the point of departure; indeed, it is obvious that they would not, for parachutes drift exactly as balloons do. And the rocket, or what was left of it after the last explosion, would have to be aimed with amazing skill, and in a dead calm, to fall on the spot where it started.

But that is a slight inconvenience, at least from the scientific standpoint, though it might be serious enough from that of the always innocent bystander a few hundred or thousand yards away from the firing line. It is when one considers the multiple-charge rocket as a traveler to the moon that one begins to doubt and looks again, to see if the dispatch announcing the professor's purposes and hopes says that he is working under the auspices of the Smithsonian Institution. It does say so, and therefore the impulse to do more than doubt the practicability of such a device for such a purpose must be-well, controlled. Still, to be filled with uneasy wonder and to express it will be safe enough, for after the rocket quits our air and really starts on its longer journey, its flight would be neither accelerated nor maintained by the explosion of the charges it then might have left. To claim that it would be is to deny a fundamental law of dynamics, and only Dr. EINSTEIN and his chosen dozen, so few and fit, are licensed to do that.His plan is not original.

That Professor GODDARD, with his "chair" in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react-to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.

But there are such things as intentional mistakes or oversights, and, as it happens, JULES VERNE, who also knew a thing or two in assorted sciences-and had, besides, a surprising amount of prophetic power-deliberately seemed to make the same mistake that Professor GODDARD seems to make. For the Frenchman, having got his travelers to or toward the moon into the desperate fix of riding a tiny satellite of the satellite, saved them from circling it forever by means of an explosion would not have had in the slightest degree the effect of releasing them from their dreadful slavery. That was one of VERNE'S few scientific slips, or else it was a deliberate step aside from scientific accuracy, pardonable enough in him as a romancer, but its like is not so explained when made by a savant who isn't writing a novel of adventure.All the same, if Professor GODDARD'S rocket attains sufficient speed before it passes out of our atmosphere-which is a thinkable possibility-and if its aiming takes into account all of the many deflective forces that will affect its flight, it may reach the moon. That the rocket could carry enough explosive to make on impact a flash large and bright enough to be seen from the earth by the biggest of our telescopes-that will be believed when it is done.